On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Barrie Treloar <baerr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Benson Margulies > <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> As for the solution of creating a 2.x branch, that's fine. I don't >>> really see much difference between your solution and mine, given that >>> you basically admit that not much work will be performed on it. Kill >>> it outright, or let it bit rot, either way.. Let's just move forward >>> with Maven 3.x and Java 1.6.x. >> >> I'd rather focus on our agreement than our disagreement. Some complex >> ball-o-hair that avoids a branch is worse than a branch. >> >> The net effect is that anyone with an itch to maintain the 2.x branch >> can maintain the 2.x branch. >> >> Note that Mark S has strong feelings that the necessary wiring to >> Aether should be carefully contained in the maven component that plugs >> in Aether, rather than having Aether calls directly in something like >> the m-d-p. > > Have we got there yet? > I've got an itch somewhere else that needs dependency resolution and > I'd rather call the maven component that does that than hack/roll my > own. > But I'm time poor enough as it is so can't justify building the > dependency resolution stuff if its not yet isolated.
Aether is definitely surrounded by a maven component. The question is, does that component expose what you need? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
